[Editor's Note: Last week's lead article was about an incident at
a Palm Beach conference where Captain Fred Mascaro was attacked for
"owning" pedigreed dogs instead of getting them from the pound. We have
since been informed that Captain Mascaro's dogs are rescued, not bought
from pet shops. With that proviso, we offer the following rebuttal opinion
to the original article.]

We read with interest the article entitled Those of You
Without Sin Cast the First Stone : Judgementalism and Shaming in the
Animal Rights Community, in issue # 06/20/04 of Animal Rights Online.

The problem of the differing levels of awareness of animal
exploitation, as well as what this reflects, which is the differing levels
of commitment to our struggle, is one which has often disturbed us. Here,
in the South of France, where 'animal welfare' essentially means taking
care of stray and abandoned dogs and cats, we have found ourselves at the
meetings of large and well-financed associations (not ours), in which a
great number of the women present were wearing fur, with no negative
comments being made by the organizers, and not by the attendees, either.
We made our comments discreetly to the organizers, in private, and
received a shrug of the shoulders in reply... That's the way it is, the
shrug was intended to convey, and we might as well face it...

We have also attended, as long-time vegetarians (and
vegans), so-called 'vegetarian' lunches given by such associations, as an
occasional 'exotic' touch, where the choice of main dishes was between
fish and omelettes. They didn't have a clue about what to do for us
vegans...

No, we made no waves on those days, but we did, as a
result, think long and hard about the problem. And we decided that, as
those who have come before us have so often said, albeit in different
contexts, they who refuse to learn from the past are condemned to repeat
its errors.

Our adversaries (who are rolling in money from their
lucrative, ill-gotten --on the backs of animal suffering-- gains and who
are well-armed with powerful --and ruthless--lobbies that exert pressuure
on the level of governments and on the national and international media,
which we cannot hope to match), these interests have always cleverly
snuffed out from our sight the evidence of our movement's past. Do we know
about the battles of those who fought before us? What they learned, why
they succeeded in their actions, or, more often, unfortunately, why they
failed?

Unless we make it our business to discover these things,
we may believe that not pointing out contradictions to well-intentioned
people is simply common courtesy... But in that case, we should not wonder
why our movement has had so little impact on society, and why we are
unable to effect real change for all animals.

We are of the mind that Animal Rights is a name covering
too many disparate tendencies, a catch-all for everything from
well-intentioned people who buy pedigreed dogs and cats, to those who
profess, speaking as the 'leaders' of the movement (leaders chosen by
whom? By the media, who report them, and not others... Why them? To put
words in our mouths? To make us all look --too often-- ridiculous? In our
opinion, all these strategies by our adversaries are possible), they are
the spokespersons, we are told, of animal defense (not you or us). So, if
they not only believe that animals have the 'right' to live their lives as
Nature intended, but also that 'some' good for humans has indeed come from
vivisection (for example) (a proposition which has been totally
discredited, even though this great news has yet to be adequately
disseminated), then not only is the principle being supported that Might
Makes Right, but also this contradiction permits our adversaries to point
and say, Why, even So And So, an Animal Rights Advocate, supports
vivisection. Or, take another 'Animal Rights Leader' (again, as dubbed by
the media) who just a couple of years ago was defending bestiality (and
probably still is)... If the animal isn't hurt by it, perhaps it's not
wrong... And no mention of the fact that an animal can hardly be
considered a willing party in sex with a human being.

While it is not necessary to shout and insult those who do
not understand the implications of their own and others' contradictory and
inconsistent thinking, it is nonetheless important for those of us who are
serious about making real changes for animals to speak out against these
contradictions and inconsistencies, every time they crop up. We have a
responsibility to educate ourselves, through this process, as well as to
educate those who are newcomers, and learning that 'Everything Goes'
cannot apply to our struggle if we intend to win. It is our duty to
separate the Dilettantes from the Soldiers.

We are in a struggle that we will never win if we do not
remember at all times what our objectives are, and where our loyalties
lie. For the Soldiers among us (many are called, but few are chosen), our
loyalties cannot be with our well-intentioned fellow humans, who wax
sentimental about the pedigreed animals they have bought and loved (for
every bought animal, how many died in the breeding process?), while
comfortably installed at a dinner table where the fruits of other animals'
sufferings are served for the greater pleasure of our species...

If we do not make the distinction between those of us who
are serious about effecting change and the others, time will pass, as too
much of it already has, and nothing will change. Let each of us decide
where his or her loyalties lie, and then those who are not in this
movement to see it through to the end, should step out of the way and let
those who are committed, and who have a monumentally difficult job to do,
get on with it without the additional obstacles.

One last observation: the same issue (# 06/20/04) of
Animal Rights Online ended with a quotation from Christiaan Barnard
designed to warm the heart of all animal lovers. But a closer look at this
'animal lover' reveals that in fact Barnard had a job of it, trying late
in life to salvage his reputation --in the eyes of the public no less than
in the eyes of his own profession-- as a result of what was considered (by
his colleagues) to be his 'irresponsible' quest for self-glorification (at
the time, one Nobel laureate spoke of 'criminal operations')... For heart
transplants were technically possible long before Barnard first performed
one; none were attempted because his medical colleagues knew that the
chances of patient survival were essentially nil. Barnard captured the
headlines over and over again with his human to human heart transplants,
then with animal to human heart transplants (opening the way, by the way,
to transmission to man of primate viruses), always with the same result:
operation successful, patient dead. In Slaughter of the Innocent (for
which, by the way, Christiaan Barnard demanded reparation from the author,
while not disputing the facts revealed), Hans Ruesch wrote : " Zurich's
daily, Blick, reported on June 24 [1977] that during the operation [to
implant the heart of a female baboon into the chest of a 25-year-old
Italian woman] the whole surgical ward of Groote Schuur shuddered again
and again to the shrieks of the baboon lady, as her chest was being cut
open and heart excised without the slightest anesthesia, because Barnard
wanted to give to his patient a heart in perfect working order, completely
free of any chemicals..." (Slaughter of the Innocent, p.413) The young
woman was dead a few hours after the transplant took place. Pardon us if,
after this report, and the self-admitted large number of primates
vivisected and thereby 'sacrificed' by Christiaan Barnard, we do not
applaud this late-life effort to redeem himself in the eyes of the world.

In vivisection (which has led to so much false medicine
and resulting human suffering), it is particularly easy to see what is
true of all 'Animal Rights' : "Animal protection is, essentially, the same
combat as human protection," said Marguerite Yourcenar. Half-measures will
get us absolutely nowhere in spreading this message, nor will they serve
us in realizing the social changes that it imposes.

As Ayn Rand advised (not an Animal Rights leader, but one
smart cookie nonetheless) :
Judge-- and be prepared to be judged..

** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.